It is disappointing to see one of our self-anointed “constitutional conservatives”, meaning Ted Cruz, is found to fall far short of constitutional conservatism when it comes to tax reform.

Surely a “constitutional conservative” knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today’s violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

The very purpose of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned was to insure that Congress, if and when it decided to enter the States and tax the citizens directly, the tax would turn out to be an equal per capita tax and not the socialist type of tax which Cruz proposes, which is to seek out and place a larger tax burden upon the most productive members of our society. Cruz’s tax plan is more in line with what Bernie Sanders would support than what our founders intentionally rejected.

keep in mind that the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is still very much part of our Constitution and any “constitutional conservative” knows this.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with an income tax and direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

— cut —

Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.

A few years later in another case dealing with income taxation and direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.

This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax”.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned “incomes” which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.***

Link please? You would be hard pressed to find anyone in the halls of the Senate any more Constitutionally conservative than Cruz. Cruz is proposing abolishing the IRS, not so sure how that is seen as not being Constitutionally conservative.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

I must be stupid, because the simplest most straightforward reading of this says Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on income without apportionment. I mean it sounds to me like the tax they impose on me every year is constitutional. Silly me, but anything else is convoluted twisting of words written in black and white, but thanks to lawyers and JWK, who are clearly much smarter than I am at divining the meaning of words, I am proved wrong. But it seems the lawyers have yet to actually strike down the income tax authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment as unconstitutional.

JWK, what you say just makes no sense to me. I just don’t follow your argument at all – regardless of what type of taxation is preferable or the wisdom of the Sixteenth Amendment, which was adopted following the rules of the Constitution. But I’m sure it’s just a defect in my ability to comprehend the plain English in the Sixteenth Amendment.

It is disappointing to see one of our self-anointed “constitutional conservatives”, meaning Ted Cruz, is found to fall far short of constitutional conservatism when it comes to tax reform.

Surely a “constitutional conservative” knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today’s violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

The very purpose of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned was to insure that Congress, if and when it decided to enter the States and tax the citizens directly, the tax would turn out to be an equal per capita tax and not the socialist type of tax which Cruz proposes, which is to seek out and place a larger tax burden upon the most productive members of our society. Cruz’s tax plan is more in line with what Bernie Sanders would support than what our founders intentionally rejected.

keep in mind that the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is still very much part of our Constitution and any “constitutional conservative” knows this.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with an income tax and direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

— cut —

Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.

A few years later in another case dealing with income taxation and direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.

This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax”.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned “incomes” which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.***

Nonsense, JWK. Have you NEVER read the 16th Amendment??? Whether or not it was “wise,” it was passed by constitutional means and GAVE Congress the authority to levy income taxes…period. That means that 2/3rds of the States and 3/4ths of BOTH houses of Congress passed it and the President signed it. Don’t like it? (Me neither) Then REPEAL it–again, by Constitutional means. And good luck with that what with half the population dependent upon largesse from the public treasury…precisely what Compte Alexis de Toqueville warned against as far back and the mid-19th Century!

Cruz is proposing abolishing the IRS, not so sure how that is seen as not being Constitutionally conservative.

Please explain how Cruz proposes to close down the IRS while also proposing to keep alive the socialist friendly, failed experiment, of laying and collecting taxes calculated from tips, wages, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes is a “conservative” idea.

A flat tax calculated from incomes, even if “flat”, does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. Does Cruz’s flat tax end our despotic federal government from arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not taxable income? No! Does it end our Washington Establishment’s use of taxation to intentionally seek out America’s productive hard working citizens and transfer the bread they have earned to a dependent voting block who prostitutes their vote for free government cheese? No! How about the devastating and slavish manipulations carried out under this socialist tax calculated from incomes, especially class warfare? Does a flat tax end that? No! Or, would Mr. Cruz’s flat tax end taxation being used as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government? Heck No! So why is Ted Cruz so comfortable with a flat tax calculated from wages, tips, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes, which is a component part of a despotic federal government?

In addition, Cruz’s tax reform proposal since it is designed to be Congress’ primary means to raise a revenue, it violates the very intentions behind the rule of apportionment which was intended to insure that each state’s share of the federal tax burden, if Congress entered the States and imposed a general tax, would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress ___ representation with a proportional financial obligation . . . an idea which socialists and the friends of big government fear and hate with a passion.

And just what were the founders intentions for adopting this rule as expressed in their own words?

Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

***“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.”***4Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
***“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” ***3Elliot’s, 243,***“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ***3Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during ther atification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, ***“they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public.”***3Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

***“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very smallportion”***3Elliot’s 41

JWK

Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

I must be stupid, because the simplest most straightforward reading of this says Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on income without apportionment. .

It does not say Congress has power to lay and collect a “direct” tax on incomes without apportionment. Let us look at the historical facts regarding the 16th Amendment.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

Had this wording been ratified as the 16th Amendment which declared Congress “… shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment …” there would be no question that the proposed amendment was intentionally written to allow Congress to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes. But this wording was intentionally changed on June 28th, 1909 to:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In fact, the power to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment was changed to only allow a tax on incomes without apportionment and left intact the protections in our Constitution which require any direct tax to be apportioned.

On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.

At this point in time the question raised is how may Congress lay and collect a tax on incomes which takes the form of an indirect tax which does not require an apportionment? And the answer to this question is found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Decided March 13, 1911 before the 16th Amendment is adopted! The tax in question is referred to as the Corporate tax of 1909.

This tax, expressly stated in the act is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year. The court goes on to explain:

*“The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.”

Two years after this case is decided the 16th amendment was ratified on Feb. 3rd, 1913, and it merely confirms what the court has already stated in Flint, that Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without having to apportion the tax, but keep in mind the tax on incomes takes the form of an indirect tax which only requires uniformity.

The bottom line is, in some cases a tax on “incomes” is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it can take the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

The simple truth is, the 16th Amendment did not remove the protection that any tax laid, regardless of the name placed upon the tax, if it is direct, requires and apportionment among the States. And let us not forget the last time this was confirmed was in the recent Obamacare case in which Justice Roberts wrote:

”The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

Now, getting back to what Ted Cruz proposes for tax reform, which is more in line with the subject of the thread, he supports keeping alive the socialist friendly and notoriously evil tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes which is the very vehicle used by our Washington Establishment to keep the heel of government on the necks of the American People. Additionally, it is most remarkable that Cruz tells us he will shut down the IRS, but proposes the very type of tax which requires the IRS to stay open. And I find that disingenuous.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

You are inviting a 5000 word copy and paste that will have nothing to do with your question, been there and done that!

This happens a lot, but I have to be fair after thanking your post because, well, it’s so often true. He did actually explain what he did write a response to me. And I have a good idea about how the hair splitting works.

JWK, I still read this amendment as permission for an income tax. Apparently, fortunately and/or unfortunately, I think the courts have agreed. It sounds to me like a few specific hair-splitting instances where the courts have ruled otherwise.

Splitting hairs about “direct” and “indirect” makes the topic seem a little silly honestly. With or without the word “direct,” the Sixteenth Amendment’s meaning seems plain to me. But if “direct” taxes are not permited, I suspect, JWK, that income taxes are not considered “direct taxes” and that what I pay in income taxes today differs substantially from the cases you are discussing. I don’t time to continue reading more than the little I just have read about it atm, but the term “direct” seems to mean something other than what I think “direct” means. You mentioned Roberts: ”The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.” But what he’s talking about most certainly is directly applied to me. I think he and others would likely would make the exact same statement about the income tax.

In which case, the income tax is constitutional, and if Ted Cruz preserves it (whether abolishing or keeping the IRS), Cruz is acting constitutionally. If he is acting constitutionally, then your criticism falls flat.

Splitting hairs about “direct” and “indirect” makes the topic seem a little silly honestly. With or without the word “direct,” the Sixteenth Amendment’s meaning seems plain to me. But if “direct” taxes are not permited, I suspect, JWK, that income taxes are not considered “direct taxes” and that what I pay in income taxes today differs substantially from the cases you are discussing. I don’t time to continue reading more than the little I just have read about it atm, but the term “direct” seems to mean something other than what I think “direct” means. You mentioned Roberts: ”The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.” But what he’s talking about most certainly is directly applied to me. I think he and others would likely would make the exact same statement about the income tax.

In which case, the income tax is constitutional, and if Ted Cruz preserves it (whether abolishing or keeping the IRS), Cruz is acting constitutionally. If he is acting constitutionally, then your criticism falls flat.

Well, I appreciate your response but I am disappointed that the truth and documented facts I posted seem meaningless to you in the discussion. But the irrefutable fact is, direct taxes, even if alleged to be a tax upon incomes, must be apportioned as confirmed in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

In this case the court states with regard to the apportionment of direct taxes:

*”This limitation [“those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal”] still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not ‘income,’ as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

The fundamental relation of ‘capital’ to ‘income’ has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ [252 U.S. 189, 207] as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.”*

The court then goes on to discuss and elaborate upon the nature of a stock dividend and in so doing writes the following:

”And we are considering the taxability of bona fide stock dividends only. [252 U.S. 189, 212] We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is the richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction.”

Finally the Court concludes:

*“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder’s interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder’s share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder’s share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." *

The bottom line is, simply because Congress declares a tax to be a “tax upon incomes” does not make it so. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it still requires an apportionment among the state as found in the Eisner Case. Each case, as the court has eloquently stated, is to be decided ***”… according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

***I cannot compel you or anyone else to take the time to actually study what has transpired since the 16th Amendment was introduced on June 17th 1909 to the present time. But having taken the time to do so, I can say with complete confidence our Supreme Court confirmed in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) that Congress had power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from the beginning of our nation’s founding. However, various taxes laid upon incomes have been challenged as being direct and requiring apportionment, one case in question is the above mentioned Eisner case which was argued after the 16th Amendment was adopted and struck down a tax upon incomes as being direct and requiring an apportionment.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Does anyone in the thread see the wisdom and brilliance behind the Constitution’s rule of apportionment as applied to taxation, and how it would encourage Congress’ to practices sound fiscal policies if put back into effect?

Please explain to me why the 16th Amendment says tax upon “incomes” and not an “income tax” which is a generically named type of tax? JWK

No, I’ll not attempt to explain you out of your position. Recall that I asked for an explanation and I get a question attempting to duck making an explanation. Nice try fella but with me it does not work that way. You made a rather definate statement and when I asked for an explanation you have asked me to respond. Guess again. BTW I was aware of the court rulings before they were made available to you on the thread by another poster. Have a nice evening.

Does anyone in the thread see the wisdom and brilliance behind the Constitution’s rule of apportionment as applied to taxation, and how it would encourage Congress’ to practices sound fiscal policies if put back into effect?

There is NO wisdom in that tax system, it is one of the few taxation methods that is as convoluted and saturated with central planning opportunities as a tax on income, maybe even worse.

Please explain to me why the 16th Amendment says tax upon “incomes” and not an “income tax” which is a generically named type of tax?

Keep in mind the tax argued in the Flint case which was calculated from income was in fact an “excise” tax, and not a generically named “income tax”.

JWK

“Tax on income” or “income tax”? Your post reminds me of President Clinton on the stand wondering what “is” means. This is the worst kind of lawyer talk: Black is white, up is down and hello is goodbye.

"johnwk:

Well, I appreciate your response but I am disappointed that the truth and documented facts I posted seem meaningless to you in the discussion. But the irrefutable fact is, direct taxes, even if alleged to be a tax upon incomes, must be apportioned as confirmed in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You spend this post copying and pasting text about whether dividends are income. I have an income. I receive it in exchange for my labor. The Sixteenth Amendment for better or worse applies to my income. If it does or does not apply to gains from investment doesn’t really address your main concern, the modern income tax. It just discusses whether one form of “income” or “wealth” or “property” is actually income.

Just what is it about the Constitution and its amendments that protects me from this so-called “unconstitutional” tax on *my *income? You quote a number of opinions nibbling at the edges of the topic, but you don’t quote any opinions that this nation’s income tax is actually unconstitutional. You won’t be able to because they don’t exist. If they did, we wouldn’t be paying the income tax. I posted quotes and links to three that address this issue and are contrary to your opinion.

And RET is right about your favorite form of taxation. We still have a system of tariffs in place, and they’re hardly handled equally and fairly. Their wide ranging rates are aligned with special interests who seek protection from competition in a free market (hence the term “protectionism” that you hate so much) – socialism at its finest.

No, I’ll not attempt to explain you out of your position. Recall that I asked for an explanation and I get a question attempting to duck making an explanation. Nice try fella but with me it does not work that way. You made a rather definate statement and when I asked for an explanation you have asked me to respond. Guess again. BTW I was aware of the court rulings before they were made available to you on the thread by another poster. Have a nice evening.

There is NO wisdom in that tax system, it is one of the few taxation methods that is as convoluted and saturated with central planning opportunities as a tax on income, maybe even worse.

Well, I disagree. I support our Constitution’s original tax plan and I have yet to hear a rational argument why the socialist friendly tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries, and other lawfully earned incomes is superior to our Constitution’s original tax plan.

And just what is it that you find objectionable to requiring direct taxes to be apportioned?

“Tax on income” or “income tax”? Your post reminds me of President Clinton on the stand wondering what “is” means. This is the worst kind of lawyer talk: Black is white, up is down and hello is goodbye.

.

I don’t know why you get upset and flustered when I point out the Constitution declares “a tax on incomes” and not a “direct taxes on incomes” which was actually rejected during the framing of the 16th Amendment on June 28th, 1909.

Why do you have such a problem sticking to the wording which is actually in the Constitution?

And RET is right about your favorite form of taxation. We still have a system of tariffs in place, and they’re hardly handled equally and fairly. Their wide ranging rates are aligned with special interests who seek protection from competition in a free market (hence the term “protectionism” that you hate so much) – socialism at its finest.

Thank you for your generalized comments concerning imposts and duties laid at our water’s edge. You seem to be claiming that such taxes invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism and pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. I think your charge is far overblown. Let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain or favoritism, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21:

***“It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .’’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.” ***

I think Ted Curz’s love affair with the socialist and big government friendly tax calculated from “incomes” invites far more abuses than taxing consumption, especially when it keeps the door open for our federal government being allowed to place its jackbooted heel directly on the neck of every American citizen; requires them to disclose their intimate and personal affaires to government; allows government to harass and use the tax as a weapon against political foes; and has proven to encourage folks in government to manipulate almost every aspect of our private lives, not to mention how it is successfully used by socialists running for office to attack the most productive members of society and claim they are not paying their “fair share” in taxes.

Well, excuse me, Senator Cruz. But our wise Founding Fathers wrote a “fair share formula” into our Constitution when declaring “representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned”! And it demands that if Congress ever decided to enter the states and tax the citizens directly, the tax would turn out to be an equal per capita tax.

What is Ted Cruz’s problem with equal taxation when the government taxes the people directly, and what is his objection to defending the wisdom and brilliance behind the rule of apportionment?

JWK

Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?